Posted by Jochem Maas on 11/11/05 16:50

read the internals@ archive - there is a chap there who is developing an php module
that makes objects wrappers for basic types available.

but imho:

$str = new String("W T F !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!");
echo $str->getValue(), $str, $str->__toString();

is just a bit OTT. also creating and rolling out (to a group of
developers) a set of classes to use in place of basic types on the basis
of a _belief_ that it may eliminate some development errors seems to be
not an unsound basis for such as decision.

chances are that half the time developers will 'forget' the
'basetype' classes, your dealing with egos you know :-).

but then again maybe in a couple of years we will only have objects to
represent types - although so long as at least Rasmus is 'on the bridge'
of starship NCC-17-PHP I imagine that won't be happening - IFAIR the creator is a fan
of straigtforward procedural code in most cases - apologies to Rasmus if I misread him.

cron@odi.com.br wrote:
> Some more thought.
>
>
>
> To solve this problem would be necessary to create some utility class like
> System in java and that way should be possible to do a System::echo($string)
> based on type, i guess this can be accomplished using overloading.
>
>
>
> Am I making any sense?
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <cron@odi.com.br>
> To: <php-general@lists.php.net>
> Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2005 6:47 PM
> Subject: Re: [PHP] PHP 5 && OO && performance && exceptions
>
>
>
>>I was not considering that, I was using $obj_string->getValue(), the
>>__toString method and type casting could save me some keystrokes :)
>>
>>
>>
>>Anyway, did you abandon the development with the basic types class?
>>
>>
>>
>>Angelo
>>
>>
>>
>>----- Original Message -----
>>From: "Jake Gardner" <gardner.jake@gmail.com>
>>To: <cron@odi.com.br>
>>Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2005 1:37 PM
>>Subject: Re: [PHP] PHP 5 && OO && performance && exceptions
>>
>>
>>I myself was considering creating classes such as String, but I ran
>>into more basic problems before performance, for example:
>>
>>class String {
>> protected $Value;
>> function __construct($Value) {
>> $this->Value = $Value;
>> }
>>}
>>$SomeString = new String("Hello World!");
>>Print($SomeString); // Does not print "Hello World!"
>>
>>The way around this was still unsatisfactory:
>>class String {
>> protected $Value;
>> function __construct($Value) {
>> $this-> Value = $Value;
>> }
>> function __toString() {
>> return $this->Value;
>> }
>>}
>>$SomeString = new String("Hello World!");
>>Print($SomeString); // Prints "Hello World!"
>>
>>Because this has obvious limitations, and is only a fix for strings;
>>this doesnt work for functions that expect integer values.
>>
>>In reality, there really is no way to use PHP to rewrite a type in PHP
>>without using the PHP "omni-type".
>>
>>However, you can use type casting as it is:
>>
>>
>
> http://us2.php.net/manual/en/language.types.type-juggling.php#language.types.typecasting
>
>>http://us2.php.net/manual/en/function.settype.php
>>
>>
>>On 11/9/05, cron@odi.com.br <cron@odi.com.br> wrote:
>>
>>>Hello,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Currently I'm make some utilities classes and I took the idea from java
>
> to
>
>>>make some wrappers class like String, Integer and so on. This allows me
>
> to
>
>>>use the type hint for basic types in php. Anyone have a clue if
>
> replacing
>
>>>the all in one type in php for objects types will degrade the
>
> performance?
>
>>>
>>>
>>>Also for every controller class that I'm making I'm also making
>
> exceptions
>
>>>class of every error that it can generate. Same questions: It will
>>>degrade performance to throw an exception instead of lest say a pear
>
> error
>
>>>or return false?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Just for know, I'm doing this because I believe that it will eliminate
>>>some o problems o development and will eliminate some basic validations.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Any tips appreciate
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Angelo
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>--
>>PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
>>To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>>
>>
>
>

[Back to original message]